Your Help Refuting a Blog

[SpecialFrog]

I'm asking you to show how the arguments I have used to prove the points I have made are mere "shakey assertations".

Until you do this I will not answer anymore of your questions.

I have already done this for most of these statements in this thread but here is a summary.

your claim that the Bible doesn't occasionally sanction rape

You have argued that sanctioning taking women as spoils of war is not sanctioning rape. Nor is permitting slave owners to have sex with their slaves. You don't understand consent. Read this (at a minimum).

your claim that laws intended for Jews only are clearly delineated from general laws within the books of Moses

You have provided no evidence for this and seem unwilling to do so thus making it an unsubstantiated assertion.

your claim that "every thing the Lord expects from you can easily be summarized in just a few sentences"

You have provided no evidence for this and seem unwilling to do so thus making it an unsubstantiated assertion.

your claim that the Bible is reasonably historically accurate

You keep asserting this as if it is an established fact with no evidence. I have pointed out some things in the Bible that definitely did not happen and you ignored it.

that there is a demonstrably correct interpretation of the Bible

You haven't addressed my arguments in this area at all. This is the point in the conversation where you preferred to insult me, I believe.

In conclusion, this is you:

 

[thenexttodie]

your claim that the Bible doesn't occasionally sanction rape..
You have argued that sanctioning taking women as spoils of war is not sanctioning rape... You don't understand consent. Read this (at a minimum).

Your link talks about about a person who has been taken advantage of while drunk. I think what you are trying to say that if anything, the Israelites were in a situation where the women they took with them were compelled to have sex with them. After all, the Israelites destroyed their city and there was nothing left and everyone else was dead so what choice did these women have? Especially in and during a place and time where mere day to day survival was not always possible!

I have already answered this by pointed out that, after a war it is not uncommon for the women of the losing side to want to be with the men from winning side.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_bride

 

[SpecialFrog]

your claim that the Bible doesn't occasionally sanction rape..
You have argued that sanctioning taking women as spoils of war is not sanctioning rape... You don't understand consent.

Your link talks about about a person who has been taken advantage of while drunk.

Only the first paragraph. Did you read beyond that?

I have already answered this by pointed out that, after a war it is not uncommon for the women of the losing side to want to be with the men from winning side.

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Yeah, that is basically the same as war brides in WW2.

Does the fact that you feel that you have to defend this abhorrent passage not give you pause at all?

I also have to assume that your choice to focus solely on this means you think it is the most defensible claim you have made.

 

[thenexttodie]

your claim that the Bible doesn't occasionally sanction rape..
You have argued that sanctioning taking women as spoils of war is not sanctioning rape... You don't understand consent.

Your link talks about about a person who has been taken advantage of while drunk.

Only the first paragraph. Did you read beyond that?

Yes.

I have already answered this by pointed out that, after a war it is not uncommon for the women of the losing side to want to be with the men from winning side.

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Yeah, that is basically the same as war brides in WW2.

Does the fact that you feel that you have to defend this abhorrent passage not give you pause at all?

I also have to assume that your choice to focus solely on this means you think it is the most defensible claim you have made.

I knew that since you would not be able to defend your claim of God condoning rape, you would eventually revert to arguing that God is a bad guy because he kills women and children.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I have already answered this by pointed out that, after a war it is not uncommon for the women of the losing side to want to be with the men from winning side.

Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

Yeah, that is basically the same as war brides in WW2.

II knew that since you would not be able to defend your claim of God condoning rape, you would eventually revert to arguing that God is a bad guy because he kills women and children.

What exactly do you think the bold passage means? I think you actually do know what it means because you previously mentioned the rules that apply when you take a woman as a spoil of war.

Please stop being disingenuous. It does nothing to advance the discussion.

 

[thenexttodie]

What exactly do you think the bold passage means?

It means the Lord allowed the Isrealites to marry these women, as long as certain critirea was met.

 

[WarK]

What exactly do you think the bold passage means?

It means the Lord allowed the Isrealites to marry these women, as long as certain critirea was met.

What if the women didn't want to marry them?

 

[thenexttodie]

SpecialFrog, unless you have any new information to add, which directly refutes any of the points I have already made in this thread, I will no longer respond to your posts here. You have been talking over and over again in circles for far too long.

 

[SpecialFrog]

What exactly do you think the bold passage means?

It means the Lord allowed the Isrealites to marry these women, as long as certain critirea was met.

What if the women didn't want to marry them?

That's not one of the criteria.

SpecialFrog, unless you have any new information to add, which directly refutes any of the points I have already made in this thread, I will no longer respond to your posts here. You have been talking over and over again in circles for far too long.

You can do what you like, though I'm only repeating myself because you refuse to back up your claims.

 

[WarK]

What exactly do you think the bold passage means?

It means the Lord allowed the Isrealites to marry these women, as long as certain critirea was met.

What if the women didn't want to marry them?

That's not one of the criteria.

Interesting. Do you think this is why there are Christians who are completely ok with rape when it's a husband raping his wife?

 

[lilmarome]

What exactly do you think the bold passage means?

It means the Lord allowed the Isrealites to marry these women, as long as certain critirea was met.

What if the women didn't want to marry them?

That's not one of the criteria.

I was raped by my ex but I guess it's ok since he was my bf at the time so he had the right to do that...

 

[SpecialFrog]

What exactly do you think the bold passage means?

It means the Lord allowed the Isrealites to marry these women, as long as certain critirea was met.

What if the women didn't want to marry them?

That's not one of the criteria.

Interesting. Do you think this is why there are Christians who are completely ok with rape when it's a husband raping his wife?

It is hardly limited to Christians, though. I believe it's still not a criminal offence in India unless the wife is under 15. It's still not a crime in many Muslim countries as well. Though in some cases this is a holdover from British colonial law.

I'd say it's more that many religions -- including Christianity -- have traditionally enforced a patriarchal view of relationships.

The Wikipedia article seems like not a bad overview.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I was raped by my ex but I guess it's ok since he was my bf at the time so he had the right to do that...

Sorry to hear that. Unfortunately it seems that many police departments seem to think that way.

 

[Visaki]

It is hardly limited to Christians, though. I believe it's still not a criminal offence in India unless the wife is under 15. It's still not a crime in many Muslim countries as well. Though in some cases this is a holdover from British colonial law.

I'd say it's more that many religions -- including Christianity -- have traditionally enforced a patriarchal view of relationships.

The Wikipedia article seems like not a bad overview.

In Finland raping your spouse was made illegal only in 1994. Though before this people raping their spouse were charged with assault or forcing (but only if the victim wanted to press charges), so de facto raping within a marriage was illegal.

The ability of theists to justify grossly immoral action within their holy books to themselves never ceases to astonish me. Thinking about it further it is exactly the same as neo nazis who justify the extermination of the Jews (gypsies, retarded etc) by the Third Reich.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

II knew that since you would not be able to defend your claim of God condoning rape, you would eventually revert to arguing that God is a bad guy because he kills women and children.

What exactly do you think the bold passage means? I think you actually do know what it means because you previously mentioned the rules that apply when you take a woman as a spoil of war.

Please stop being disingenuous. It does nothing to advance the discussion.

As a wise person once pointed out, SpecialFrog must be engaging in a topic that has to do with thenexttodie's worldview. That would explain why thenexttodie is acting dumb.

 

[thenexttodie]

[

As a wise person once pointed out, SpecialFrog must be engaging in a topic that has to do with thenexttodie's worldview. That would explain why thenexttodie is acting dumb.

I haven't been able to figure what topic SpecialFrog means to engage in.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]Since I have your attention now, is there any chance you will return to this thread?

[

As a wise person once pointed out, SpecialFrog must be engaging in a topic that has to do with thenexttodie's worldview. That would explain why thenexttodie is acting dumb.

I haven't been able to figure what topic SpecialFrog means to engage in.

Exactly; you are acting dumb. It is clear from even the bit that I quoted above what topic SpecialFrog is trying to engage you with. However, it is bringing into question your worldview, thus your only defense is to remain obtuse.

 

[thenexttodie]

I was raped by my ex but I guess it's ok since he was my bf at the time so he had the right to do that...

That's terrible. What happened to the person who raped you? Is he dead or is he ok?

 

[Mr_Wilford]

I was raped by my ex but I guess it's ok since he was my bf at the time so he had the right to do that...

That's terrible. What happened to the person who raped you? Is he dead or is he ok?

Uh, that's kind of a personal thing to ask someone...just saying

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I was raped by my ex but I guess it's ok since he was my bf at the time so he had the right to do that...

That's terrible. What happened to the person who raped you? Is he dead or is he ok?

Wait a minute. Thenexttodie, you still have not established that you think consent is relevant (seeing as how you are trying to defend the bible's sanctioning of the taking of virgin girls). What is it? Does consent matter or not? Because, if it does (as you seem to be implying here) than you obviously know what the bible's sanctioned was wrong. Please stop acting dumb just because we are questioning your worldview.